Gaze shifts during dual-tasking stair descent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the role of vision in stair locomotion, young adults descended a seven-step staircase during unrestricted walking (CONTROL), and while performing a concurrent visual reaction time (RT) task displayed on a monitor. The monitor was located at either 3.5 m (HIGH) or 0.5 m (LOW) above ground level at the end of the stairway, which either restricted (HIGH) or facilitated (LOW) the view of the stairs in the lower field of view as participants walked downstairs. Downward gaze shifts (recorded with an eye tracker) and gait speed were significantly reduced in HIGH and LOW compared with CONTROL. Gaze and locomotor behaviour were not different between HIGH and LOW. However, inter-individual variability increased in HIGH, in which participants combined different response characteristics including slower walking, handrail use, downward gaze, and/or increasing RTs. The fastest RTs occurred in the midsteps (non-transition steps). While gait and visual task performance were not statistically different prior to the top and bottom transition steps, gaze behaviour and RT were more variable prior to transition steps in HIGH. This study demonstrated that, in the presence of a visual task, people do not look down as often when walking downstairs and require minimum adjustments provided that the view of the stairs is available in the lower field of view. The middle of the stairs seems to require less from executive function, whereas visual attention appears a requirement to detect the last transition via gaze shifts or peripheral vision.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".